Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
—————————————————————— Pat Clarkson, and I come from Danville, California, which is near San Francisco, and I have multiple myeloma; which is not a common cancer
About 20,000 people in the United States have the disease, and about 10,000 die every year, and 10,000 get the disease
So it’s a relatively small number of folks,that have it
So it’s not well
It’s not as well researched as some of the other cancers, um, but we’re hoping that the, um, Burzynski Clinic can help me
There’s not much hope for me
I, I have probably, a, uh, prognosis of a couple, couple years
Maybe a year or two to live, um, without, um, without I, I, an alternative method of treatment, and that’s why
——————————————————————
If I could say this a little differently
The conventional medicine, or what we would call conventional medicine, which is, you know, chemotherapy, radiation, uh, surgery; which is not possible with, uh, multiple myeloma because there is no, no large tumor that can be surgically removed, uh, the doctors have told us basically there is no cure, and that, and I, I say doctors; this is our local oncologist, um, and the head of oncology at, um, University of California, San Francisco; which is a very well respected school, uh, hospital, that there is no, uh, no reasonable possibility of a cure
Um, by contrast, uh, Dr. Burzynski, we have found out, has, uh, cured several people with myeloma, and he’s cured many other people with different kinds of cancer
The problem is, uh, that the FDA in its wisdom, will not allow us to, uh, be treated with the, uh, antineoplastons that are the backbone of the Burzynski therapy
——————————————————————
Well they’ve told us that they don’t have evidence that it’s, um, that it’s an effective treatment
Uh, that, they don’t have evidence that it’s not, non-toxic; which in fact, uh, is incorrect because the FDA does have evidence that it’s non-toxic
——————————————————————
Through the Senator’s office at the, the FDA is saying that they, they don’t know for sure that it’s not toxic; that’s not true, uh, and they don’t know that it will cure the disease, and therefor they can’t approve it
We’re willing
Pat’s willing to take the odds of a treatment, that is not 100% guaranteed, and let’s face it, most of the treatments that are approved by the FDA, are toxic, and are not guaranteed
So we don’t really understand, uh, why they have an issue with it, except that, uh, there’s an awful lot of money involved
Um, one of the peculiarities of the FDA, we understand they’re, by law, required to get much of their funding from the very companies that they’re supposed to be supervising
As, as I understand, uh, the Constitution, there is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be telling, an American, who they can use for a doctor or what drugs that they can use for, uh, their, their illness
Yet, over the years this, uh, this power has grown and been accepted at the FDA, and now it’s a, uh, uh, it’s, it’s out of control
——————————————————————
We have asked the FDA what is different about my case
Why I don’t get an exemption
We don’t have a response yet to that, to that question
——————————————————————
While doctors are generally very bright; they have to be to get through medical school, but they don’t have any training in critical, critical thinking, and most of them that I run into are not particularly good critical thinkers
The world they live in is to memorize a set of symptoms, then to look up or remember what those symptoms suggest in terms of a disease, and then remember or look up what the treatment is
So, here we have, um, uh, Dr. Burzynski, who is also a Ph.Dbiochemist, which is a, a interesting and, and very useful, uh, combination, who discovered that, um, in people who have cancer, they generally don’t have, or they have very reduced levels of what he now calls, uh, antineoplastons, and neoplaston is simply the medical jargon for cancer; so it’s anti-cancer, in effect, um, he discover the people who, uh, don’t have cancer, do have, high levels of this, and determined from research that these are controlled by, um, by the genes, and it’s part of the body’s immune system, in effect
We all produce cancer cells everyday of our lives
Like we produce bac, or have bacteria in our gi, digestive tract, that is controlled, by certain genes
In this case, um, he discovered that by, uh, by injecting, uh, or infusing, uh, these, they’re called peptides, peptide, that the patient could be helped
How, how innocuous, or how anti-toxic, can you have
It’s a, it’s a substance th, the body itself produces, unless the genes have shut down
Which is the case in, uh, some, in most, or at least half I guess, of multiple myeloma cases
——————————————————————
My, my message would be that they don’t have the right to tell me to hold a, a life or a death, um, decision
They, they don’t have the right to tell me that, um, I can’t have treatment that I seek, or I will die
I don’t think they have that right to do that
——————————————————————
Treatment is available
Uh, it is our choice
We are free Americans
We’re well informed
Uh, well educated
It should be our choice, and the Federal government in any, in any form should not have the authority to interfere with that
——————————————————————
Uh, nothing’s guaranteed in this world, um, but we’ve got, um, we’ve got some confidence in this clinic and in this treatment
======================================
Pat & Steve Clarkson
January 27, 2012
Houston, Texas
6:25
2/3/2012
——————————————————————
This is our the best and the dearest, uh, patient who came to our clinic 20
——————————————————————
2
——————————————————————
2 years ago
——————————————————————
22 years ago
——————————————————————
and she was in the, she came with Hodgkin lymphoma, and a stage 4, and she didn’t have good, uh, prognosis
How long, did they tell you
—————————————————————— They told me that I was gonna die, of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
That I had a fatal disease
They would treat me for awhile with, uh, chemotherapy and radiation, um, a bone marrow transplant, and, um, we, they, we would see what would happen, but no cure Not a cure at all
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
That was 22 years ago
Um, I thank God everyday that I found Dr. Burzynski’s clinic, and Dr. Burzynski and his staff
Um, I was on his treatment for, um, 3 months when this huge tumor on the side of my neck started to reduce and finally disappeared
——————————————————————
So we adopted her as our, uh, family
——————————————————————
(laughs)
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
and now, she is our family member, and many others
——————————————————————
So tell me, uh, how did you find out about Dr. Burzynski?
——————————————————————
I was in a cancer support group, and, uh, one of the ladies in there said, you know, you have non-Hodgkins lymphoma
There’s a doctor in Houston whose been treating it with very good results
You should go and check it out
Which I went back home to my husband and said: “There’s Dr. Burzynski in Houston, Texas, and he’s having good results,” and, ah, Steve said: “You know, I’ve heard of this doctor
You know, I wrote his name down”
He’d heard about him
Wrote his name down for future use, and I think about, uh, the next couple of days we were in Houston, and we got to the clinic and I just felt I was in the right place
Everybody there
It was
The feeling was so different than being at a UCLA or a USC or Dana Farber
It was just
I knew immediately I was in the right place, and I met Dr. Burzynski
Well first of all Dr. Barbara came out and hugged me, and, uh, it was, it was so wonderful and I’ll never forget the feeling of, of, uh, my first walk into the Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
So tell me, what did, uh, any, did, did you have an oncologist at home and tell them that you were coming here ?
——————————————————————
Yeah, we did
Um, uh, I had an oncologist at UCLA who was a lymphoma specialist, and he was the one that told me I would die of the disease
Um, when we told him that we were going to see Dr. Burzynski, he wasn’t, uh, overjoyed, to say the least, and he told us very negative things and, uh, but I thought, he wasn’t offering me anything, and, uh, when I did get to the Burzynski Clinic, Dr. Burzynski said to me: “I think I can help you,” he said
He didn’t
He didn’t tell me, he was going to cure me
He didn’t
He just said: “I think I can help you,” and, it was non-toxic, and the, um, conventional medicine was offering me high-dose chemotherapy, radiation, and in fact, in mu, as much radiation as people who were, uh, within one mile of ground zero at Hiroshima, and, and they were going to bring me as close to death as possible, and then, rescue me
Uh, and then Dr. Burzynski was going to do this and actually have, where actually I would have hope of a cure, non-toxically
My hair never fell out
I felt well
Um, I lead my normal life
I drove my kids to school
I cleaned the house
Whatever
You know
It was
It’s a wonderful treatment
——————————————————————
So, at what point did you realize, I’m free of cancer ?
Do you remember that point of ?
——————————————————————
Uh, well I remember the point
I remember it very well
Um, the, it
It’s so big
Um, I had, uh, several CAT scans
I had 2 CAT scans in a row
The first one that showed no cancer at all, and, um, I had them done at UCLA, and, um, and then I had a second one, 3 months later, and that one was, was absolutely clear
So, um, it was, it was an amazing feeling, and actually 48 hours was following me, because it was, it was a really a big story, um, you know Cancer throughout my body
No, no cancer at all and, and my medical records show, um, you look at my X-rays, my CAT scans, from starting Dr. Burzynski’s treatment, um, to approximately 9 months later
Reduction, reduction, reduction, until there was no cancer
——————————————————————
So what did, what did your oncologist say ?
Did you, did you go back to your oncologist and say: “You said I was gonna die”
——————————————————————
Uh, yes, we did that
——————————————————————
And what did he say ?
——————————————————————
And, and actually people would call him and a, people who were interested in Dr. Burzynski, and he would say: “Oh, she’s a spontaneous remission”
He would never accept the fact that I was treated, and cured by Dr. Burzynski, but my medical records prove it, and of, you know I, There are so many patients like me
I’m not the only one
So
——————————————————————
So ok, tell me
Let me ask you a couple more questions
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
What sort of a person do you think Dr. Burzynski is?
——————————————————————
Well aside from being the most wonderful, gentle, sensitive, caring doctor, and you don’t find many of those
I went to many doctors, while, while we were trying to find the answer
Many, and Dr. Burzynski is so above them
He, because he really makes you feel like a person, and that he cares, and, he’s also a genius
He, I know that he speaks about 8 languages
He’s an expert on the Bible
He, he just knows so much about everything
Um, I love to be in the room with him
He’s a very special man
——————————————————————
So, you recovered, and then, ’cause you, when did you set up the patient support group, and why did you do that ?
——————————————————————
Uh, actually my husband and I did that together, and it was during, um, the trials, uh, the Texas State Board started, in fact, I became a patient, and 2 months later, ah, he was brought to a hearing in front of the Texas State Medical Board, and so Steve and I, um, organized the patients to, um, be at that hearing to support Dr. B, ’cause he’d been going through this long before I became a patient, but, um, we wanted to show support, because I was already starting to fe, I was feeling better already
I was already seeing some reduction, and now my, the medicine was in jeopardy
I, It could be taken away from me at any time
So we decided to organize the patients and to show support, and all the patients wanted to help, a, uh, obviously
So, um, we’d go to every hearing, every, uh, the trial, we were there every day, um, and we would, patients would march in front of the court building, um,
It was, it was really a sight
An unbelievable sight
——————————————————————
And why do you think that he was treated the way that he was treated ?
Why do you think they wanted to take him down ?
——————————————————————
I think it’s because
There’s many reasons
I think the main reason is because what Dr. Burzynski does is making what all other conventional doctors are doing wrong, because chemotherapy is not the answer Chemotherapy makes people sick, and, uh, most of the time it does not cure people
Um, all that poison and radiation
There’s gotta be a better way, and there is a better way Dr. Burzynski has found it
I was sick
I had cancer 22 years ago
Um, my hair never fell out, and, uh, it was a treatment that I was grateful to be on every day
——————————————————————
So how many patients have you come in contact with that Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
Hundreds
Hundreds, and as you say by my patient group web-site
Um, I think I have about 90 stories on there now, and there are many more, because, um, I haven’t been able to get in touch with everybody, but over the years, uh, people give me their stories
Sometimes people will call me, um, but we, we are a patient group because we, we’ve all been helped or cured by Dr. Burzynski, and we, we want everybody to have access to this treatment
Steve actually had the chance to ask one of, uh, one of the prosecutors, um, at the trial, that exact question: “What would you do,” and he was prosecuting Dr. Burzynski, and he actually said: “I’d be first in line”
So, once you know the whole story, and you know the science, and you, especially if you do the research, um, you, you can come to the truth, and the truth is, Dr. Burzynski, has cured cancer
He cured me
I’ve been in remission for, in remission, for, uh, 22 years, and that’s a cure, and, uh, he could help so many, many, many more people
The, he has breast cancer patients now that are, that are doing so well
He has many
I just talked to an ovarian cancer patient
He has, um, all, all different types of cancers
What he needs is funding from our government
Um, all other doctors and, and, um, institutions, they get ah, mu, get so much money from the government Dr. Burzynski doesn’t get one penny
If we could just think
If, d, if the government would just fund Dr. Burzynski, he could have a cure for all cancers
I believe that with all my heart, and somehow, some day this has to happen
—————————————————————— The Sceptics (10:37)
——————————————————————
Yeah, just tell me what this whole kind of skeptic movement
You do any research on Dr. Burzynski there’s a few things
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
that always come up
This guy Saul
—————————————————————— Saul Green
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Mmm
——————————————————————
and some other stuff
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
So just tell me
What’s that all about and where did that all come from ?
——————————————————————
It stems from, uh, a lawsuit that was filed against, uh, Dr. Burzynski
Actually it was, uh, an insurance company, that didn’t wanna pay for, uh, for the treatment
A particular patient had been treated here in Texas, uh, was put into remission
Was successfully treated and then it turns out the insurance company did not wanna pay for it, so they brought in these people
These quote unquote experts Cancer experts of, you know, rather dubious backgrounds
This is all that they do, is they look for ways to demean people
They look for ways to blacken their reputation
They ultimately became a group known as Quack watch, and these were brought in as the expert witnesses to say that this is not an approved treatment, albeit, was not true
They said the treatment didn’t work and clearly it did, and, uh, they have since gotten funding from insurance companies, from the government, private funding, and they go around to debunk things that are against mainstream, um, medicine, and, uh, their, their support comes from the insurance company and from the pharmaceutical companies who benefit from, from their work, and, uh, it expanded
Expanded all over the world to, uh, they’re in the United States, they’re in the U.K., they’re in Australia, and, uh, they have a very big presence
When the internet came into being they, you know, they went viral with this kind of stuff
So when you type in Burzynski, uh, a lot of the negative comes up first
So that’s the first thing you see is all this negative stuff, and it’s all hearsay
None of it has any basis in fact
It’s all lies
Um, you know, he, Dr. Burzynski never did anything illegal ever, and it was all based on, on very questionable legal grounds that he was ever sued, that he was, that any case was ever brought against him by the FDA or the Texas Medical Board, and all of those cases failed
They never held up to scrutiny
They all failed, and here Dr. Burzynski is today, and he’s thriving, and people come here from all over the world to be treated
Many are cured of their cancers, and, uh, all of these people in the Quack watch are gone
Uh, Saul Green has passed away
Uh, I don’t wish him ill, but I’m glad he’s not here, thank you, and all of these other people are gone and they’re not thriving, and they’re just like, you know, they’re like bacteria or like fungus under rocks, and when you shine a light on them, they can’t hold up to the scrutiny
The real light is here
The real truth is here in Houston at the Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Thoughts onDr. Burzynski(13:46)
——————————————————————
What do you think of Dr. Burzynski, yourself ?
——————————————————————
I, I, I think Mary Jo’s pretty much summed it up
Uh, I, am of course
It, it, it’s not an unbiased opinion
It can’t be
He’s the man that saved my wife
Uh, she was cast off, um, as, as, as an incurable
She was told time and time again, not just by her on, oncologist at UCLA, Dr. Peter Rosen, but we went all over the country
We went to USC in, University of Southern California, UCLA, Stanford Medical, Dana-Farber; which is associated with Harvard, uh, in, uh, Boston, and everywhere we went, she was told: “There’s no hope”
“You’re gonna die”
“It’s just a matter of time”
“We have to see how long, how long it’s gonna take”
Um, against my better wishes, we came to the Burzynski Clinic, and she said: “I’m starting today,” and I said: “Don’t you think we should go back and discuss with Dr. Rosen at UCLA ?
She said: “No, they have nothing to offer me”
She was that brave, and we started that day, and we’ve never looked, we’ve never looked back
So to ask me about what I think about Dr. Burzynski, when my wife was told she was gonna die, and I was already making plans for how am I going to take care of my children without Mary Jo; my life partner, and he saved her life, I’m not gonna give you unbiased
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
an unbiased opinion of how I feel about the man
There’s probably nobody, that I have greater love and greater respect for, uh, in, in the whole world, and, uh, to add about how, how smart, how intelligent this man is, ah, expert on, on history as Barbara was saying
Expert on religion
He’s an expert on mushrooms
He knows more about mushrooms than any 10 mushroom experts in the world
Bees
He knows about bees
Who cares about bees, but he knows everything, because bees happen to be a rich production source of antineoplastons
Who knew ? Dr. Burzynski knew, and that’s why we need to listen to him
We as a society
The world needs to listen to this man
—————————————————————— Conventional Cancer Treatment and The FDA (16:05)
——————————————————————
When you put some critical thought, critical analysis, you find that chemotherapy initially works
What it is, it’s a good, the first time around it’s a good tumor shrinking, they’re good tumor shrinking agents, but over the long run they create so many problems that eventually, the tumor becomes, the cells become resistant and the tumor takes over, or, if it is successful in shrinking the tumor to, to a, a size where the patient can survive, what happens after that is there’s a secondary cancer that’s created by the chemotherapy, with very few exceptions Testicular cancer is one exception where it works
Some childhood leukemia’s they’ve had some great success with chemotherapy, but by in large it’s a failed modality, and the side effects are so bad as, as to be called horrific, uh, is how I would describe them from what I’ve seen in, in my family and in my friends, and my associates that’ve had to undergo it
So why do we allow that, when something like antineoplastons and Burzynski’s treatment, totally non-toxic, working with the body, allowing you to lead a normal life, and on it statistically for the number of people that have been treated, uh, compared to the number of people that have walked out of here in remission, or cured after 5 years; whatever definition you wanna use, we don’t allow that
We look at that as, uh, conventional medicine looks at like that as, looks at that as some sort of quackery
This is, this is, uh, critical thinking and science turned on its head, and it doesn’t make sense, and it goes back to what I was saying before
Why it doesn’t make sense, because there’s entrenched financial interests, and there’s a paradigm that says we do for cancer, we do chemotherapy, we do radiation, we do surgery, and that’s it
Anything else is not acceptable, because it goes against the paradigm
In the bureaucracy we know as the FDA
We’ve been fighting them for so long and they’ve been described as “The B Team” “The B Team” is,that they be here when you come in and you start complaining, your problem starts, they be here, and when you decide to quit complaining because you’ve beat your head against the wall for so many years, they still be here (laugh)
So it’s “The B Team”
They’re bureaucrats
This is what they do
There, they have a certain set of tasks
Certain things that they’re tasked with
Protection of the food and drug supply of the United States, whatever that means
Whatever they deem it to mean
Whatever they decide it means
That’s what they’re gonna do, and it’s pretty hard to fight that
It’s pretty hard, unless you have a political, unless you have a, a, a, a political, ah, constituency, and you can put a lot of pressure on them
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
and that’s the only way
——————————————————————
So what’s the answer ?
What will, uh
How will Dr. Burzynski prevail ?
——————————————————————
Ultimately, in, in my, in my, in my view, the real tragedy is, is that he’s not going to prevail here in the United States
It’s going to be extremely difficult
It’s an uphill battle that, knowing Dr. Burzynski, he’s gonna keep fighting it, uh, and, and he’ll keep fighting that battle, but the real opportunity for him is to, uh, move this product and license it overseas, and, uh, other countries are interested
Other countries are more open, uh, to new modalities
They’re not entrenched, uh, and don’t have the financial, uh, interests, the, that are, the entrenched financial interests like we do here, like chemotherapy and, and, uh, radiation therapy, and I think that’s where ultimately we as Americans, as sad as it is, are going to have to go overseas to be treated and to get this medication
The FDA is so capricious in their decision-making, and in their exception granting, uh, that if Pat had AIDS, and this was anti-AIDS medication; proven or not or only with limited, uh, proven efficaciousness, uh, and proven limited proof that it was somewhat non-toxic, she would be able to get approval like that
The FDA has taken a drug approval process that generally takes anywhere from 10 to 15 years, and where there is political, successful political pressure applied, they have reduced that down to some cases 4 to 8 months as in the case of the anti-HIV drugs, and that’s because there is a very strong, very powerful political lobby in Washington, and throughout the country, and they have been able to apply pressure at key points in, uh, Congress Congress puts that pressure on the FDA, says: “C’mon let’s get the ball forward
These are voting people
We have millions of people in this country with HIV who are compacted together and make a viable political force
Let’s move forward”
In the case of multiple-myeloma
In the case of these cancers or these people that wanna be treated, who have failed all conventional therapy, and wanna be treated by Dr. Burzynski with something that we know works
Something that is, is non-toxic, they, they don’t have
We’re not a viable political force
We’re not important to the Washington bureaucrats, to the Washington lawmakers
So nothing gets done, and these exceptions for the use of antineoplastons are not granted, and that’s, that’s the sad truth
======================================
Steve and Mary Jo Siegel
January 2012
22:01
11/9/2012
——————————————————————
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. is an academic (i.e.: egg-head, paper-pusher, apparatchik) surgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery
Gorski is no H.G. Wells
Wellscould, at least, tell a convincing lie; as he did in War of the Worlds
Gorski’d likely #fail as his evil half-brother, “H.G. #Fails”, in World War Peed, and probably didn’t think his readers would get the double-entendre’
Gorski is more famouser for pie in the sky
He’ll never be likened to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, or receive a “Mark Twain Award”
He’s an unlicensed Hackademic Quackademic who believes that bad press is good press, any press is good press
Gorski is the “Guy” who felt he was Scroogled by Google, when he and his public relations (P.R.) team; which reside in the hyperthalamus section of his brain, decided on 12/5/2012 to go pure pseudononsense pseudononscience:
Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies [1]
wherein he quoted
Dr Burzynski:
“I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy”
====================================== Gorski:
“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”
“I couldn’t find it on PubMed”
“His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a “genetic disease” or “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” and everything to do with antineoplastons”
“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary”
new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar”
“I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. ”
“There’s a term called “oncogene,” which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer” ======================================
====================================== Gorski would have the reader suspend belief, and believe that he’s notsmarter than a fifth-grader; which is entirely plausible
That he could not do a search on the words:
antineoplastons
oncogenes
Burzynski
and find anything whatsoever ======================================
======================================
and that he did not have the cranial capacity to access the Burzynski Clinic web-site’s Scientific Publications page: ======================================
======================================
The United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA) did NOT have any problem finding it ======================================
====================================== Pg. 24
1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics, Vol.1. Klatz RM.
Goldman R. (Ed). Health Quest Publication 1997; Marina del Rey, CA. USA
——————————————————————
======================================
This, from a doctor, eager to prove to the world, just how smart he is, because of:
—————————————————————— 12/.5/2011 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[2] ======================================
====================================== 12/13/2012 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[3] ======================================
====================================== 3/7/2013 – “my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers“[4] ======================================
====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications” [5] ======================================
====================================== 2/18/2013 – “I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers” [6] ======================================
====================================== 6/5/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [8] ======================================
====================================== 6/10/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [9] ======================================
====================================== 6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct” [10] ======================================
======================================
The same “Guy” who claimed:
Burzynskinever explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons ======================================
======================================
A statement which I showed to be incorrect, by pointing out at least 18 different Burzynskiscientific publications which did what Gorski claimed they did NOT [11-12] ======================================
======================================
When Dr. David H. Gorski said:
—————————————————————— “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”–11/2/2012
“I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”–2/18/2013
“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”–5/8/2013
——————————————————————
exactly what did he mean by “pored over,” “read,” and “searched”?
Some Bill Clintonesque definition designed to try and stump anyone who’s not smarter than a fifth-grader ?
(“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”)
You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth-grader to understand that ifDr. Gorski actually did what he said he did, that he should have been able to conclude without any hint of doubt, thatBurzynskiexplains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
Where was your head ?
Was your head in Mississippi?
Was your head like a hole ?
Or was your head so far up your “Show Me State” pal Robert J.(don’t call me “Bobby”)Bob (I’m not a doctor, I just pretend like I’m one on the otherburzynskipatientgroup (TOBPG) and houstoncancerquack) blatherskite Blatherskitewicz(known liar) Blaskiewicz’s AstroTurf campaign, that you couldn’t see what you were not doing ?
This is a guywho has been funded by:
a) the Department of Defense(DOD)
b) the NIH (National Institutes of Health)
c) the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO
and
d) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
and this is the kind of supposed “Science-Based Medicine”(SBM)“results” he produces ?
This guy is proclaimed as:
“a prolific essayist and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a highly-respected blog that exposes non-scientific research and practices”
A “highly-respected blog”?
really ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me !!!
“For the last ten years, he has been a major voice — as himself and pseudonymously — for science-based medicine”
You mean that “Orac”Hack ?
“Dr Gorski also runs an active research laboratory at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute”
Research ?
Is it similar to his “research” which I exposed here?
And yet, after showcasing such “brillianot” research skilz, Tuesday, 7/30/2013, Dr. Gorski was appointed / named program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines[13]
He “will be involved in many aspects of the quality initiative”
Let’s hope that one of those aspects is NOT the “research” one
“Dr. Gorski has the breadth and depth of knowledge to effectively lead our very strong Breast Multidisciplinary Team,” said Dr. Bepler
“I have every confidence that Dr. Gorski will continue this very high standard of care.”
Perhaps Dr. Bepler is out-of-touch with reality when it comes to Gorski’s “research” and “standard of care” abilities
I wonder how long it is before his effort at infiltrating evidence-based guidelines with his Science-Based Medicine, raises its ugly hypocritical head ?
During the Holidays, maybe Dr. Gorski will have time to celebrate his promotion with his wife with an evening out, and before he pops the surprise to her about his retirement plans for Castro’s Cuba, he can take her by the hands, stare into her eyes with his big brown eyes; they have to be brown, right (?), because he’s so full of “it,” (?) and tell her these heart-warming words:
Darling, I know, that you know, that what I do brings home the bacon, and so it makes a difference in Michigan
In fact, I wanted to let you know how much of a difference I’m helping to make
1997 thru 2001, African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 in Michigan; as reported in the American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2005-2006, listed Michigan as the state tied with the 20 most breast cancer cases per 100,000, with 36.2
I’m proud to announce that for the last 2 reporting periods (2011-2014), covering 2003 thru 2009, Michigan is no longer tied with the state with the 20 most cases of breast cancer per 100,000
Michiganis now the state with the 11th most cases of breast cancer in African American women, which rose .5 from 33.8 to 34.3 over the last 2 reporting periods
And that’s not all
African American womenbreast cancer incidences inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 119.0, 2000 thru 2004 as reported in the 2007-2008 report, up .4 to 119.4, 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
Additionally, African American womenbreast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 33.8 for 2003 thru 2007, as reported for 2011-2012, up .5 to 34.3 for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014
And furthermore, breast cancer incidences in Michigan, per 100,000, were 119.4 for African American women for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, and 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010 for white women, reported 2013-2014
So African American womenhad .7 more breast cancer incidences thanwhite women
And also, the breast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, was 34.3 forAfrican American women 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, 11.5 more than the 22.8 for white women for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And I thought you’d be very pleased to know that the estimated new breast cancer cases in women inMichigan, rose from 6,120 in 2008, to 8,140 in 2013
An increase of 2,010
And, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated new breast cancer cases, to the 8th
And as if that were not enough great news for you, the estimated breast cancer deaths in women inMichigan, rose from 1,350 in 2004, to an additional 10 more women, 1,360 in 2013
And just like with the estimated new women breast cancer cases, again, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated breast cancer deaths, to the 8th
And last, but certainly not least, Michigan cancer death rates dropped from 25.8 in 2008, 1.8 to 24.0 in 2013
However, Michiganwent from being the state tied with the 18th most cancer cases per 100,000, to the state tied with the 11th most
But don’t worry honey
If you’re white like me, because you’re in Michigan, the breast cancer incidence for you per 100,000, went from 133.9 for 1998 thru 2002, as reported 2005-2006, down 15.2 to 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And, even better, white death rates in Michigan per 100,000, dropped from 27.3 for 1996 thru 2000, as reported 2003-2004, 4.5 to 22.8 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And best of all, sweetie, if you do get breast cancer and you’re white, you have a 9% better 5-year overall survival rate (69% – whites / 60% – African Americans, and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites)
And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that life expectancy is lower forAfrican Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
If that’s not job security for me, I don’t know what is
The mistake that Gorski made is that he did not take into account that this is not the age of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, etc
In this day and age, people canNOT get away with adopting lying as a part of a strategy, because the NSA is watching, and so are We, the People
Remain calm
Germans subjugated themselves to Hitler, the Soviets, Stalin, Italians, Mussolini, Cubans to Castro, and none of them were worth subjugating oneself to
None of them were worth being put on a pedestal
None of them were greater than you or I
Gorski is NOT the greater good
Gorski has a degree in “B.S.” from the University of Michigan
I do not have a “B.S.” degree
I’m the one NOT full of“B.S.”
Now that sounds like a story ripe for a journalistic investigation
So, I guess that means Bob Blaskiewicz’s fave “journalist,” Liz Szabo, and USA TODAY, are out of the running for this type of “reporting”
But look on the bright side:
“In his new role, he will work with the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D., who is the MiBOQI program director, as well as assistant dean for Research and professor of Internal Medicine/Hematology-Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School”
Maybe “the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D.” will be GorskGeeks“checks and balances” ====================================== “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” ====================================== http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
====================================== Such risible hyperbole would induce fits of laughter in me if it weren’t such a complete lie ======================================
I’m just glad dad got outta Kellogg country while he could
—————————————————————— P.S.: Per Dr. David H. Gorski, anything which might erroneously be perceived as a lie about Burzynski, is NOT anything wrong, per Wayne State University[14] ======================================
====================================== What Are the Costs of Cancer?
—————————————————————— National Institutes of Health(NIH) estimates:
—————————————————————— overall costs of cancer:
—————————————————————— 2010 – $263.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$263.8 billion (2010)
2008👇$201.5 billion (2013) 2008☝$228.1 billion (2009)
2007☝$226.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$219.2 billion (2008)
2006👇$206.3 billion (2007) 2005☝$209.9 billion (2006)
2004☝$189.8 billion (2005)
2003☝$189.5 billion (2004)
2002☝$171.6 billion (2003)
2001☝$156.7 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— direct medical costs
(total of all health expenditures)
—————————————————————— 2010 – $102.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$102.8 billion (2010)
2008👇$77.4 billion (2013)
2008👇$93.2 billion (2009) 2007☝$103.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$89.0 billion (2008)
2006☝$78.2 billion (2007)
2005☝$74.0 billion (2006)
2004☝$69.4 billion (2005)
2003☝$64.2 billion (2004)
2002☝$60.9 billion (2003)
2001☝$56.4 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— 2008-2011 – indirect morbidity costs
(cost of lost productivity due to illness)
—————————————————————— 2010 – $20.9 billion (2011)
2010☝$20.9 billion (2010)
2008☝$18.8 billion (2009)
2007☝$18.2 billion (2008)
2006☝$17.9 billion (2007)
2005☝$17.5 billion (2006)
2004☝$16.9 billion (2005)
2003☝$16.3 billion (2004)
2002👇$15.5 billion (2003) 2001☝$15.6 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— indirect mortality costs
(cost of lost productivity due to premature death)
—————————————————————— 2010 – $140.1 billion (2011)
2010☝$140.1 billion (2010)
2008☝$124.0 billion (2013)
2008👇$116.1 billion (2009) 2007☝$123.0 billion (2012)
2007☝$112.0 billion (2008)
2006👇$110.2 billion (2007) 2005☝$118.4 billion (2006)
2004👇$103.5 billion (2005) 2003☝$109 billion (2004)
2002☝$95.2 billion (2003)
2001☝$84.7 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— According to US Census Bureau:
—————————————————————— Americans uninsured 2012-2013had no health insurance coverage
—————————————————————— 2010👇approximately 50 million (2013) 2009 – almost 51 million (2012) 2009☝almost 51 million (2011) 2008☝46 million (2010)
—————————————————————— 2008 – approximately 28% aged 18 to 34 years (2010)
—————————————————————— 2010👇almost one-third of Hispanics (31%) (2013) 2009 – almost one-third of Hispanics (32%) (2012) 2009☝almost one-third of Hispanics (32%) (2011)
—————————————————————— 2011-2012 (17 years of age and younger) 2010-2012 – had no health insurance coverage
—————————————————————— 2010 – one in 10 children (2013) 2009 – one in 10 children (2012) 2009 – one in 10 children (2011) 2008 – 10% of children (2010)
—————————————————————— 2012-2013 PLEASE NOTE:
These numbers are not comparable to those published in previous years as of 2011, NIH calculating estimates using different data source:
2012 – NIH is using a different data source:
2012-2013Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
2012-2013 MEPS estimates based on more current, nationally representative data used extensively in scientific publications
2012-2013 direct and indirect costs will no longer be projected to current year, estimates of indirect morbidity costs discontinued
2012-2013 For more information, please visit nhlbi.nih.gov/about/factpdf.htm.
——————————————————————
Lack of health insurance and other barriers prevents many Americans from receiving optimal health care
—————————————————————— 2008 – early release estimates from National Health Interview Survey(2009) 2006 – early release estimates from the National Health Interview Survey(2008) 2004 – National Health Interview Survey data (2007) 2003 – National Health Interview Survey data (2006)
—————————————————————— 2008 – about 24% aged 18 to 64 years (2009) 2006☝about 24% aged 18-64 (2008) 2004 – about 17% younger than age 65 had no health insurance coverage (2007) 2003☝about 17% younger than age 65 have no health insurance coverage (2006)
—————————————————————— 2004 – 27% 65 and older had Medicare coverage only (2007) 2003☝24% 65 and older have Medicare coverage only (2006)
—————————————————————— 2008 – 13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2009) 2006☝13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008 – More than 36% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2009) 2006☝Almost 34% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008 – 23% of high school graduates (2009) 2006☝23% of high school graduates (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008👇14% of those with more than high school education (2009) 2006 – 15% of those with more than high school education (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008 – Lack of health insurance is not only a concern of unemployed; almost one-quarter of employed individuals (aged 18 to 64 years) were uninsured sometime during past year (2009)
—————————————————————— 2004 – Persons in lowest income group 10 times as likely as persons in highest income group not to receive needed medical care because of cost (2007)
—————————————————————— 2004 – Almost 16 million citizens (6%) were unable to obtain needed medical care due to cost (2007)
—————————————————————— 2003 – In survey, nearly 20% aged 18-44 years reported not having usual place to go for medical care (2006)
—————————————————————— 2010-2013 – Uninsured patients and ethnic minorities substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly
—————————————————————— 2012-2013 – For more information on relationship between health insurance and cancer, see Cancer Facts & Figures 2008, Special Section, available online at cancer.org/statistics. 2010 – cancer.org. 2009 – (5008.08), Special Section, available online at cancer.org. 2008 – see special section page 22
[1] – 1995 (10/1995) – The National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued its CancerNet “fact sheet”
The problem is that there were “factual issues” with the CancerNet “fact sheet”
—————————————————————— [0] – All Americans are “presumed to know the law:”
Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001
18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
(3) “makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry”
——————————————————————
Below is how the “fact sheet” looked before and after the “fact sheet’s” “factual issues” were fixed
====================================== BOLD = changes
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – CancerNet from the National Cancer Institute
CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trials of Antineoplastons
Antineoplastons are a group of compounds originally isolated from urine by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who claims that they inhibit cancer cell growth
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – Antineoplastons
Antineoplastons are a group of synthetic compounds that were originally isolated from human blood and urine by Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., in Houston, Texas
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – Dr. Burzynski has used these compounds to treat patients with various cancers
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – Dr. Burzynski has used antineoplastons to treat patients with a variety of cancers
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – In 1991, a “best case series” review was conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to evaluate clinical responses in a group of patients treated at Dr. Burzynski’s Houston facility
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a review to evaluate the clinical responses in a group of patients treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – For this review, Dr. Burzynski selected from his entire clinical experience seven brain tumor patients whom he felt had a beneficial effect from antineoplastons
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – The medical records of seven brain tumor patients who were thought to have benefited from treatment with antineoplastons were reviewed by NCI
—————————————————————— [3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:
[A] – Gives the reader the impression that in his entire clinical experience he had only 7 patients who benefitted from antineoplaston treatment
[B] – He prepared not 7, but dozens of cases for the NCI reviewers
[C] – The reviewers were able to spend just one day at the clinic–enough time to review only 7 cases
(averaging one case per hour)
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – This series did not constitute a formal clinical trial, since it was a retrospective review of medical records, did not include all available patient information, and included only cases selected by Dr. Burzynski
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – This did not constitute a clinical trial but, rather, was a retrospective review of medical records, called a “best case series.”
—————————————————————— [3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:
[D] – The patient medical records that NCI scientists reviewed were exhaustive and did contain “all available patient information.”
[E] – Michael Hawkins, M.D., leader of the site visit team, specifically complimented him on how complete and well-organized they were
[F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network:, which advised, in part:
“Seven patient cases were presented at the site visit and the records, pathology slides and scans documenting response were reviewed”
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – The reviewers of this series determined that there was presumptive evidence of antitumor activity and NCI then proposed that Phase II clinical trials be conducted to evaluate more definitively the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adult patients with refractory brain tumors
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity, and NCI proposed that formal clinical trials be conducted to further evaluate the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adults with advanced brain tumors
—————————————————————— [F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI)
sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network:, which advised, in part:
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate”
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:
[G] – The statement of the NCI scientists who actually reviewed patient records was quite different from the above
Their report stated:
“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in the best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate”
(minutes of Decision Network committee meeting)
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – The decision by NCI to sponsor the study of an agent in a clinical trial does not indicate that the agent is or will be useful in the treatment of cancer patients, only that it merits further evaluation in a research setting
Efforts to study antineoplastons in a scientifically rigorous manner have required complex interactions among NCI, clinical investigators, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Alternative Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration, advocates from the alternative medicine community, and Dr. Burzynski
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – Two protocols were developed by the participating Cancer Center investigators with extensive review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – Investigators at several cancer centers developed protocols for two phase II clinical trials with review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – These studies began in 1993 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, and the NIH Clinical Center
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – These NCI-sponsored studies began in 1993 at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – However, accrual to these studies was very slow and only nine patients were enrolled
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – Patient enrollment in these studies was slow, and by August 1995 only nine patients had entered the trials
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – On 8/18/1995, the studies were closed because a consensus could not be reached with Dr. Burzynski on the proposed changes in the protocol to increase accrual, and there was no hope of completing the studies in a timely manner
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – Attempts to reach a consensus on proposed changes to increase accrual could not be reached by Dr. Burzynski , NCI staff, and investigators, and on 8/18/1995, the studies were closed prior to completion
—————————————————————— [3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:
[H] – The only reason the clinical trials of antineoplastons were stopped is that NCI would not conduct them as per our written agreement
[I] – Even the NCI’s own previous “fact sheet” on antineoplastons, dated 2/17/1994, states that
“The NCI reviewed 7 cases of patients with primary brain tumors that were treated by Dr. Burzynski with antineoplastons and concluded that antitumor responses occurred“
[J] – The NCI never made any effort to “reach a consensus.”
[K] – It simply violated the written protocol we had agreed upon
[L] – Without informing me, NCI changed the rules to allow patients with any size or number of tumors, low performance scores, and spinal cord metastases
[M] – When I found out and insisted that NCI either conduct the study as agreed or inform patients that I felt it was conducting the study improperly, NCI cancelled it
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – Because these studies were closed prior to completion, no conclusions can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/20/2002 – Because of the small number of patients in these trials, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of treatment with antineoplastons
====================================== [1] – 10/1995 – It is rare that this kind of NCI-sponsored clinical study cannot be successfully completed
The NCI is disappointed by this outcome but is continuing to evaluate related compounds in clinical trials in order to determine if they may be of benefit in the treatment of patients with cancer
====================================== REFERENCES:
====================================== [1] – Date Last Modified 10/1995
—————————————————————— CancerNet from the National Cancer Institute
CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trials of Antineoplastons
Antineoplastons are a group of compounds originally isolated from urine by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who claims that they inhibit cancer cell growth
Dr. Burzynski has used these compounds to treat patients with various cancers
In 1991, a “best case series” review was conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to evaluate clinical responses in a group of patients treated at Dr. Burzynski’s Houston facility
For this review, Dr. Burzynski selected from his entire clinical experience seven brain tumor patients whom he felt had a beneficial effect from antineoplastons
This series did not constitute a formal clinical trial, since it was a retrospective review of medical records, did not include all available patient information, and included only cases selected by Dr. Burzynski
The reviewers of this series determined that there was presumptive evidence of antitumor activity and NCI then proposed that Phase II clinical trials be conducted to evaluate more definitively the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adult patients with refractory brain tumors
The decision by NCI to sponsor the study of an agent in a clinical trial does not indicate that the agent is or will be useful in the treatment of cancer patients, only that it merits further evaluation in a research setting
Efforts to study antineoplastons in a scientifically rigorous manner have required complex interactions among NCI, clinical investigators, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Alternative Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration, advocates from the alternative medicine community, and Dr. Burzynski
Two protocols were developed by the participating Cancer Center investigators with extensive review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
These studies began in 1993 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, and the NIH Clinical Center
However, accrual to these studies was very slow and only nine patients were enrolled
On 8/18/1995, the studies were closed because a consensus could not be reached with Dr. Burzynski on the proposed changes in the protocol to increase accrual, and there was no hope of completing the studies in a timely manner
Because these studies were closed prior to completion, no conclusions can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons
It is rare that this kind of NCI-sponsored clinical study cannot be successfully completed
The NCI is disappointed by this outcome but is continuing to evaluate related compounds in clinical trials in order to determine if they may be of benefit in the treatment of patients with cancer
====================================== [2] – This fact sheet was reviewed on 7/13/01
Editorial changes were made on 5/20/02
——————————————————————
CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services
Antineoplastons
Antineoplastons are a group of synthetic compounds that were originally isolated from human blood and urine by Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., in Houston, Texas
Dr. Burzynski has used antineoplastons to treat patients with a variety of cancers
In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a review to evaluate the clinical responses in a group of patients treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston
The medical records of seven brain tumor patients who were thought to have benefited from treatment with antineoplastons were reviewed by NCI
This did not constitute a clinical trial but, rather, was a retrospective review of medical records, called a “best case series.”
The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity, and NCI proposed that formal clinical trials be conducted to further evaluate the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adults with advanced brain tumors
Investigators at several cancer centers developed protocols for two phase II clinical trials with review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
These NCI-sponsored studies began in 1993 at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health
Patient enrollment in these studies was slow, and by August 1995 only nine patients had entered the trials
Attempts to reach a consensus on proposed changes to increase accrual could not be reached by Dr. Burzynski , NCI staff, and investigators, and on 8/18/1995, the studies were closed prior to completion
A paper describing this research, “Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma,” appears in Mayo Clinic Proceedings 1999, 74:137–145
Because of the small number of patients in these trials, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of treatment with antineoplastons
At present, the Burzynski Research Institute is conducting trials using antineoplastons for a variety of cancers
====================================== [1] – Date Last Modified 10/1995
——————————————————————
====================================== [2] – This fact sheet was reviewed on 7/13/2001
Editorial changes were made on 5/20/2002
——————————————————————
[1] – 6/6/1995 – Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Institute (NCI), Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), sent a 3 page letter to Burzynski, in response to his letters of 4/20/1995 and 5/16/1995, which advised, in part, on page 1:
“I will 1st address the questions you raised about individual patients participating in the NCI-sponsored antineoplaston studies“
“2 patients were treated at the National Cancer Institute”
“Patient .26-77-03-9 … at the NCI“
“Patient .27-53-76-5 … “
—————————————————————— 6/6/1995 we know “2 patients were treated at the National Cancer Institute” [1]
[2] – 8/23/1995 – Robert B. Lanman, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Legal Advisor, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Council, Public Health Division, sent a 1 page letter; which he copied Dr. Michael A. Friedman on, to Burzynski’s attorney, Richard A. Jaffe, Esq., which was in response to his letter of 7/21/1995, and advised, in part:
” … you requested in your letter that we provide you or Dr. Burzynski with the medical records of patients treated by the Principle Investigators”
“The NCI does not possess any individual patient records to provide to Dr. Burzynski”
—————————————————————— 6/6/1995 we know per Dr. Michael A. Friedman’s letter that “2 patients were treated at the National Cancer Institute” [1]
8/23/1995 we know that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) did NOT have “any individual patient records” for those 2 patients per National Institutes of Health (NIH) Legal Advisor Robert B. Lanman [2]
[3] – 9/19/1995 – Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Institute (NCI), Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), sent a 2 page letter to Burzynski, which advised, in part:
“I am replying to your 8/29/1995 letter in which you requested “detailed records” of the patients treated in the National Cancer Institute sponsored trials of antineoplastons“
Pg. 2
“We have no individual patient records in our possession in addition to the Theradex reports”
—————————————————————— 6/6/1995 we know from Dr. Michael A. Friedman’s letter that “2 patients were treated at the National Cancer Institute”[1]
8/23/1995 we know that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) did NOT have “any individual patient records” for those 2 patients per National Institutes of Health (NIH) Legal Advisor Robert B. Lanam’s letter [2]
9/19/1995 we know that Dr. Michael A. Friedman advised that “We have no individual patient records in our possession …”[3]
8/23/1995 we know that Dr. Michael A. Friedman was copied on Robert A. Lanman’s letter which stated that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) did NOT have “any individual patient records” for those 2 patients [2]
All Americans are “presumed to know the law”, so we know that Dr. Michael A. Friedman would have advised Robert B. Lanman if his 8/23/1995 written statement to Burzynski’s attorney, Richard A. Jaffe, Esq., was NOT TRUE [2]
[0] – Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001
18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
(3) “makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry”
[4] – 10/5/1995 – Robert B. Lanman, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Legal Advisor, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel, Public Health Division, sent a 1 page letter to Burzynski’s attorney, Richard A. Jaffe, Esq., which advised, in part:
“This is in response to your 9/8/1995 letter in which you reiterate your request for copies of individual patient records and argue that the protocol for the study of Antineoplastons specifically provides that medical records of patients treated by the Principal Investigators will be provided to Dr. Burzynski”
“With regard to the portion of the medical record which you forwarded, the stamp does indicate that the patient was seen at the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center“
“We have learned that 2 patients were enrolled … through the Clinical Center and hence … the Clinical Center … has medical records for those 2 individuals”
—————————————————————— 6/6/1995 we know from Dr. Michael A. Friedman’s letter that “2 patients were treated at the National Cancer Institute” [1]
8/23/1995 we know that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) did NOT have “any individual patient records” for those 2 patients per National Institutes of Health (NIH) Legal Advisor Robert B. Lanam’s letter [2]
8/23/1995 we know that Dr. Michael A. Friedman was copied on Robert A. Lanman’s letter which stated that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) did NOT have “any individual patient records” for those 2 patients [2]
9/19/1995 we know that Dr. Michael A. Friedman advised that “We have no individual patient records in our possession …” in his letter to Burzynski [3]
10/5/1995 we know that Robert B. Lanman admitted that ” … the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center … has medical records for those 2 individuals”, in his letter [4]
All Americans are “presumed to know the law”, so we know that Dr. Michael A. Friedman would have advised Robert B. Lanman if his 8/23/1995 written statement to Burzynski’s attorney, Richard A. Jaffe, Esq., was NOT TRUE [2], and / or would have advised Burzynski in his 9/19/1995 letter that the National Cancer Institutes Clinical Center had “medical records for those 2 individuals” [3]
Dr. Michael A. Friedman
6/6/1995 you advised Burzynski that “2 patients were treated at the National Cancer Institute” [1]
8/23/1995 you were copied on Robert A. Lanman’s letter which stated that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) did NOT have “any individual patient records” for those 2 patients [2]
8/23/1995 we know that you did NOT advise Burzynski that National Institutes of Health (NIH) Legal Advisor Robert B. Lanman’s written statement was NOT TRUE [2]
9/19/1995 you advised Burzynski that “We have no individual patient records in our possession …” [3]
10/5/1995 – Robert B. Lanman admitted that ” … the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center … has medical records for those 2 individuals” [4]
Dr. Michael A. Friedman, I know that you would NOT break the law
Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001
18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
(3) “makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry”
Dr. Michael A. Friedman, please let me know why what you did was NOT a LIE
My primary obligation is to the American public, because, I know you would tell the TRUTH, since, in your words, you “could not responsibly act in any other manner”
====================================== [0] – Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 